Justine Greening to be moved in forthcoming cabinet reshuffle?

[SwindonPkwy]

Good work SouthernHRH from another (slightly biased) enthusiast.

 

[Yew]

Thats something that is often overlooked on here actually, connecting flights. usually when doing the rail vs air debate we only look at totally domestic journies.

Its possible that some redesigns of the heathrow and manchester airport railheads, along with through high speed trains could tip the balance of Heathrow-Birmingham travel in favour of the railways though. Although if it would ever happen is a different matter

 

[radamfi]

It is possible to have a successful economy without having one of the world's biggest airports. If you look at list of countries by GDP per capita:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

the UK is only 22nd in the world yet it has the busiest international airport. Many of the countries in Europe above the UK in this table are much richer yet don't have an airport rivalling LHR.

 

[jimm]

What will this do, move jobs and wealth to other countries.

I seem to remember hearing much the argument advanced as a reason to vote Tory before several general elections. Oddly enough when Mr Blair was elected/re-elected, all those celebs and businessman who came out with this sort of stuff decided to stay here. It is also the argument advanced when someone dares to suggest more regulation of the banks, which have done such great things for our economy. And I'm sure can be adapted for all sorts of other situations too.

It also creates British jobs

That would be why so many of a certain fast-expanding discount airline's cabin crew appear to come from Eastern Europe then.

More jobs, more money.

You forgot more pollution and more global warming and less Polar ice cover but hey, what does it matters if Holland - Schipol airport included - and much of East Anglia disappear beneath the waves, we'll all be able to fly to Xiamen...

A third runway would allow for British Airways to reduce fares

And your evidence for this assertion is what? BA/IAG is a business, not a charity.

But there is no other option than to build a third runway at Heathrow.

Really? Well you could always start with a blank sheet of paper like so many other cities around the world have done in recent years, because their existing main airports were too close to the cities they served, or slap bang in the middle in the case of Hong Kong.

Far harder to achieve in this country than in many others where it was done but there most certainly are other options - just that, as usual, the airlines don't want to pay for them, just get the rest of us to foot the bill.

And it's so much easier to just keep on blighting the lives of the people of West London (and demolish the homes of some of them) who never had a say in the creation of Heathrow in the first place, as it was constructed by stealth under the cover of the Second World War by the Air Ministry, supposedly as an RAF base.

As great as rail is, I cannot see it leading to the end of domestic air travel

That would be why the French domestic air network is now near non-existent in most places, why the number of flights and passengers on what was once the world's busiest air route between Madrid and Barcelona has fallen off a cliff since the opening of the AVE line in 2007-8 and why there are precious few flights left between Manchester and London compared with a decade ago then.

 

[SouthernHRH]

It is possible to have a successful economy without having one of the world's biggest airports. If you look at list of countries by GDP per capita:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

the UK is only 22nd in the world yet it has the busiest international airport. Many of the countries in Europe above the UK in this table are much richer yet don't have an airport rivalling LHR.

A little round up

1 Luxembourg 113,533 2011 - Tax Haven
2 Qatar 98,329 2011 - Gas/Oil
3 Norway 97,255 2011 - Gas/Oil
4 Switzerland 81,161 2011 - Industry, (Medicine/Chemical)
5 United Arab Emirates 67,008 2011 - Oil
6 Australia 65,477 2011 - Natural Resources
7 Denmark 59,928 2011 - Oil/Gas/Natural Resources
8 Sweden 56,956 2011 - Oil/Telecom/Automotive
9 Canada 50,436 2011 - Oil/Gas/Natural Resources
10 Netherlands 50,355 2011 - Manufacturing/Oil/Chemicals
11 Austria 49,809 2011 - Automotive/Manufacturing
12 Finland 49,350 2011 - Manufacturing
13 Singapore 49,271 2011 - Pharmaceutics/Manufacturing
14 United States 48,387 2011 - Need I say? Fingers in all pies
15 Kuwait 47,982 2011 - Oil
16 France 47,513 2011 - Manufacturing/Chemicals
17 Ireland 46,878 2011 - Beverages/Manufacturing
18 Japan 45,920 2011 - Manufacturing/Automotive
19 Belgium 45,467 2011 - Automotive/Beverages/Chocolate
20 Germany 43,742 2011 - Automotive/Manufacturing/Beverage/Banking
21 Iceland 43,088 2011 - Banking
22 United Kingdom 38,592 2011 - What do we do....

Now, I am not an economist, but there is a reason we are £50bn in deficit. We don't make anything, we import practically everything we use. We are a country of services and business. A place that business happens. As such, many people need to have access to the city.

 

[PR1Berske]

Wow, that graph post is one of the best I've seen here. superb work.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

A per capita comparison of countries ignores population, geography and demographics. It is not surprising that Luxembourg, Norway et al. do not have or require international airports on the scale of LHR.
The Netherlands is a good case in point, though. A country that 'punches above its weight' in aviation terms because the government there has supported the aviation industry. If AMS was a one or two runway airport, KLM would be a fraction of its size and the Schiphol area would not be supporting so many jobs.

 

[jimm]

We don't make anything

Really, so how did manufacturing account for 11 per cent of the UK's GDP in 2011? And employ 2.5 million people, who deserve a little more respect than you seem prepared to give them. Source http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01942

Why should we take any of what you say seriously if this is the best you can manage?

 

[radamfi]

A per capita comparison of countries ignores population, geography and demographics. It is not surprising that Luxembourg, Norway et al. do not have or require international airports on the scale of LHR.
The Netherlands is a good case in point, though. A country that 'punches above its weight' in aviation terms because the government there has supported the aviation industry. If AMS was a one or two runway airport, KLM would be a fraction of its size and the Schiphol area would not be supporting so many jobs.

But bigger countries like the UK could have more than one big airport. For example, the north of England is too far from London, and has a large population in its own right, so could be argued to need its own international airport.

 

[SouthernHRH]

Really, so how did manufacturing account for 11 per cent of the UK's GDP in 2011? And employ 2.5 million people, who deserve a little more respect than you seem prepared to give them. Source http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01942

Why should we take any of what you say seriously if this is the best you can manage?

We certainly employee far more people in manufacturing than I believed, hands up there. However I stand by my point, we do not manufacturing anything like we used to in the past. We are in a "Made in China" culture.

@jimm

That would be why so many of a certain fast-expanding discount airline's cabin crew appear to come from Eastern Europe then.

On this point, I am assuming you are talking about easyJet. If this is the case, then I disagree. In any industry you will have workers from all ethnic backgrounds, however something like 2/3s of easyJet's cabin crew are employed UK taxpayers. Don't quote me on that figure however. easyJet has very little need to employ people from Eastern Europe, A) the network isn't very large in that region and B) almost all easyJet cabin crew are paid that same basic wage, so they can't get away with "cheap labour" from the Eastern European workforce.

You forgot more pollution and more global warming and less Polar ice cover but hey, what does it matters if Holland - Schipol airport included - and much of East Anglia disappear beneath the waves, we'll all be able to fly to Xiamen

Prove that global warming is a real issue. In the past, I have studied Geography and from all the research and learning I experienced, I sit in the "its a load of nonsense" camp. The earth goes through Glacial (cold) and Interglacial (Hot) periods on a cycle that spans many thousands of years. In the past the earth has heated up and cooled down all by itself, and this is what is now happening. We are in an interglacial period which means the atmosphere will continue to heat up regardless. Below is an image of what archaeologists believed our area of the earth looked like, some 9000 years ago.

Exeter University

And your evidence for this assertion is what? BA/IAG is a business, not a charity.

Good point. No evidence. Strictly an assumption. However, more slots/flights, leads to more competition. More competition leads to cheaper flights. Swings and roundabouts.

Well you could always start with a blank sheet of paper

Yes you could. But in London, not achievable. Realistically. I am sure you are aware, our wise Mayor Boris has lobbied long and hard promoting the idea of "Boris Island" in the Thames Estuary, http//www.halcrow.com/thames-hub/ . Long and short of it, too expensive, environmental disaster and completely unachievable. By undertaking such a project, once open, Heathrow would have to close, hurrah for the locals. However, this means that the main direct employer to over 100,000 people in West London has now gone. All these people would have to relocate to the other side of London. This doesn't even include the amount of people employed indirectly through the airport, ie all the companies that rely on Heathrow which would also have to shift. We are talking 100,000s of thousands of people affected here. The main issue here, is the capacity is needed now. Boris Island would not be complete for many years yet, by which point it may be too late to compete.

And it's so much easier to just keep on blighting the lives of the people of West London (and demolish the homes of some of them) who never had a say in the creation of Heathrow in the first place,

The following link is to a map of Southwest London in 1930era, when Heathrow opened as an aerodrome, long before the second world war.
http://www.soundsurvey.org.uk/index.php/survey/historical_london_map/land_use/1259/

At the time, the area was rather rural and sparsely populated. The majority of people living there now were not there when it was built. The airport came before the people, therefore you point about blighting their lives, I find invalid. People living around Heathrow, a large amount whom rely on it for employment, moved there once it was already an established airport.

That would be why the French domestic air network is now near non-existent in most places, why the number of flights and passengers on what was once the world's busiest air route between Madrid and Barcelona has fallen off a cliff since the opening of the AVE line in 2007-8 and why there are precious few flights left between Manchester and London compared with a decade ago then.

The difference between us and the Spanish, is we will have only 2 high speed lines, one of which runs completely the opposite direction to practically the entire population,. You cannot honestly tell me you believe that high speed 2, a network connecting 6 cities, is going to be the end of UK domestic air travel.

I do believe that rail has a big part in the future of this country, hence why I am on this forum, however its not going to end aviation.

Above is visual representation of how I believe Heathrow should be expanded. 3rd Runway, 6th Terminal, both in the positions suggested by the airport and industry. However, I believe that during the time of undertaking such a Megaproject, other projects can be completed also. Ie, better connecting Heathrow to the rail network. Inspiration was taken from, http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/eng/InfoPoint/mddp/mddp04/heathrow2/homepage.htm , through the idea of having a central terminal area with the platforms stacked above each other. The station would have a total of 8 platforms, all with through tracks.
- Green Line - Piccadilly Line (Existing)
- Blue Line - Crossrail Line (Existing Heathrow Express/Connect Tunnels) Extended from Heathrow Terminal 5 to Colnbrook Depot, then on to new Link to Iver/Reading. New station built at Terminal 6
- Red Line - Asford/Feltham to Iver/Hayes - New Tunnelled line running N-S through airport to allow for trains from Guilford/Woking to run through the airport, onwards to destinations such as High Wycombe. Also creates a link for trains from South London to access the airport. Eg, East Croydon - Heathrow could be a direct option.
- Yellow Line - Spur line, between Heathrow CTA and T6 that runs East-West. Could be used as the Heathrow Express line as trains terminate at terminal 5. Alternatively. It could be extended further to follow the Airtrack Proposal and continue onwards to Staines.

One thing not mentioned, the yellow area adjacent to the new terminal area would be a business and science park/city. Creating new jobs in the area to further strengthen the airport and district.

By building all these new connections, Heathrow would be in direct access of trains to Guildford, Woking, Reading, High Wycombe, Clapham Junction to name a few. In theory, it also opens up the opportunity for direct train links between Gatwick and Heathrow, although works to create a new junction at Redhill onto the North Downs line would be needed to allow for that, as well as electrification of said line for it to be worthwhile.

 

[ainsworth74]

However I stand by my point, we do not manufacturing anything like we used to in the past.

And yet the value of those manufactured good is far more than it was in the past. Just because we don't bash bits of metal together to make ships or glue bits of plastic together to make toys does not mean our manufacturing sector is small. You can argue all you want about Britain not making as much as she once did but the fact remains that the manufacturing sector of the economy is more valuable than it was even in the 1950s, a smaller piece of the economic pie, but a more valuable one than it ever was previously.

I think what you might be falling foul of here is the belief that seems to be prevalent that because we don't employ 100,000 people making ships on the Clyde or that because I'm typing this message on laptop whose parts came from Taiwan* we somehow have stopped making things entirely. This is not true. We simply don't employ as many people in manufacturing as we once did because in the areas where you can employ 100,000 people we are no longer competitive.

*Actually whilst the components of my laptop were made in Taiwan and elsewhere, the laptop itself was assembled in Britain, on an industrial estate in North London.

 

[radamfi]

On this point, I am assuming you are talking about easyJet. If this is the case, then I disagree. In any industry you will have workers from all ethnic backgrounds, however something like 2/3s of easyJet's cabin crew are employed UK taxpayers. Don't quote me on that figure however. easyJet has very little need to employ people from Eastern Europe, A) the network isn't very large in that region and B) almost all easyJet cabin crew are paid that same basic wage, so they can't get away with "cheap labour" from the Eastern European workforce.

For an aviation expert, I'm surprised that you didn't realise he actually meant Ryanair, which clearly has a much higher percentage of non-UK born staff than easyJet. Anyone who has flown on both of those airlines a few times can see that. Perhaps you aren't interested in low cost airlines given your enthusiasm for LHR? Obviously if future growth actually comes from that sector then there is no need for an expanded LHR as low cost airlines don't want to use it.

 

[Butts]

My belief is that a third runway should be built a Heathrow and the Government can make a major contribution towards it........

Think about it Rail is massively subsidised and Road and Air Travel are nice little earners for the Government.

Three years APD will cover a third runway just about ......environmental tax my ars* :roll:

 

[PR1Berske]

I'm worried that a new runway - or a whole new airport - would simply bring yet more investment into London/SE, causing yet more economic hardship on the north.

Summary - I'm passionately pro HS2, and just as passionately anti-airport expansion down south.

 

[northwichcat]

The Guardian say on their front page this morning that MPs are calling for George Osborne to be moved so it sounds like Cameron is being put on pressure to do a reshuffle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For an aviation expert, I'm surprised that you didn't realise he actually meant Ryanair, which clearly has a much higher percentage of non-UK born staff than easyJet. Anyone who has flown on both of those airlines a few times can see that. Perhaps you aren't interested in low cost airlines given your enthusiasm for LHR? Obviously if future growth actually comes from that sector then there is no need for an expanded LHR as low cost airlines don't want to use it.

Easyjet are a British based company and their flights to and from the UK are generally (if not all) worked by UK based crews. For a flight like Liverpool-Gibraltar a Liverpool based crew will work the outbound flight and then work the return flight for their next job. Easyjet also operate flights that don't go anywhere near the UK e.g. Berlin to Athens so they will probably have foreign crews that work those services.

Ryanair are a foreign airline (Ireland is not part of the UK) so you would generally expect a higher level of foreign staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm worried that a new runway - or a whole new airport - would simply bring yet more investment into London/SE, causing yet more economic hardship on the north.

I don't think we need any investment in air travel in the north, apart from a few improved rail links to get to and from the airport e.g. extending the Manchester spur to be a through line and linking Liverpool and Leeds/Bradford airports.

However, considering Heathrow offers destinations not available from any other UK airport I think it does need better long distance links. Presently it requires multiple changes for long distance passengers after they have reached London.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I'm worried that a new runway - or a whole new airport - would simply bring yet more investment into London/SE, causing yet more economic hardship on the north.

Summary - I'm passionately pro HS2, and just as passionately anti-airport expansion down south.

There's a strongly held view that HS2 would also result in a further drain towards London and the SE, at the expense of the Midlands and North.




.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I saw Justine Greening on the BBC Breakfast Time TV this morning and in cricketing terms, she played a "straight bat" to all questions with regard to the time of signing of the documentation for the new franchise and of course, as is the media want, the same specific question was asked three times, but each time the same answer was forthcoming from her.

 

[BananaRepublic]

.....along with through high speed trains could tip the balance of Heathrow-Birmingham travel in favour of the railways.....

Heathrow-Birmingham ?
There are no air services between those cities as the distance involved is too small.



.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.....the UK is only 22nd in the world yet it has the busiest international airport. Many of the countries in Europe above the UK in this table are much richer yet don't have an airport rivalling LHR.

Busiest "international", but not the busiest either by the number of passengers or the number of commercial aircraft movements.
e.g. Atlanta has 1/3 more passengers and double the number of flights.

The high proportion of international passengers, that puts Heathrow at the top of that one particular statistical measure, is entirely down to our position as a small island nation, where even some relatively short flights to nearby cities are across an international boundary and the concentration of the majority of international scheduled flights through that airport.

There are European airports rivalling Heathrow.
Frankfurt and Paris are not that far behind in total passenger numbers and Frankfurt is actually busier in the number of flights operated.
When it comes to the amount of cargo handled, Those two airports leave Heathrow dead in their wake.

Frankfurt would be far busier if most of the air traffic into and out of Germany were concentrated through that airport. However Germany has two major hubs and another about to open (Munich and Berlin).
In addition, there are lots of international flights from several other German cities too, so the load is spread across more airports.



.

 

[Wolfie]

Her opposition to the third runway at Heathrow is cited as the main reason, which I believe to be totally fair. The investment into Heathrow first and foremost, before investment at other airports is surely the way forward economically, and when compared to Johnson's reclaimed land in the Thames estuary... I think we all know which is more attractive...

my bold

Ah, economics, thats all that matters to the current mob - stuff the environmental effects (there is NO practical way of expanding Heathrow and staying within pollution limits with current technology - well that's not entirely true, you could do it and close the M4) and the degradation of the life of the 8M people who live in Greater London (the noise footprint for Heathrow already covers places as far out as Barnet and Potters Bar in North London). Make no mistake, any attempt to expand Heathrow will be in the courts for years, all the way to Europe.....I can't stand Boris but on this one I am with him.....

"more attractive" to those who live anywhere but London.....

 

[scandal]

Prove that global warming is a real issue. In the past, I have studied Geography and from all the research and learning I experienced, I sit in the "its a load of nonsense" camp.

I'm sorry but I can't let this comment fly.
Just what are your Geographic credentials to give any weight to your argument? How recent have your studies into the field been, what are your qualifications in the field? It can't be that recent or you will have read some of the thousands of pieces of literature exploring global warming both peer reviewed and independent. Posting a picture to a research image from Exeter University of the UK some 9000 years ago does nothing to strengthen your argument except as a distraction.

The earth goes through Glacial (cold) and Interglacial (Hot) periods on a cycle that spans many thousands of years.

I assume you mean the Holocene Maximum?
So for the aid of posters on here lets take a look at the past 12,000 years global temperatures.

Whilst this graph shows a variety of sources it is lacking the most recent temperature changes to allow it to really be used in 2012 for proving academic quantitative evidence. But it is far better then those based on the 1990 IPCC graph which was not based on any data sources. Part of the problem with your argument is that temperature trends and measurements are largely down to indirect evidence, it is hard enough to measure and show trends for the past 1000, which when people do not like what they show ask to see further back and again we have the same problem. I can show graphs further back into time if required to illustrate global temperature change, but considering your original comments I have taken them at face value and hope that you are happy with the evidence for the period specified. As someone so adept in the Geographic field I am sure you will understand that context is everything. In order first to understand the Holocene Maximum, we must first realise that in order for any weight to be given to such a graph we must be comparing like with like, I am sure you will agree the ecosystems and economies today are far different from those 10,000 years ago and we have a significant built environment. If you look at the warming during the Holocene Maximum and factor in the Milankovitch Cycles you will see that the Earth's orbital changes are a significant factor in this and completely irrelevant to the arguments of todays temperature rises (see the wealth of research by NOAA).

In the past the earth has heated up and cooled down all by itself, and this is what is now happening.

So lets look at the evidence where there has been significant quantitative data analysis which can be used. I've duly attached a copy of a Reconstructed Temperature Graph of the last 1000 years with multiple sources to illustrate the following trend in global temperatures.

Whilst there are no accurate records for the entire length of this time period, temperatures can be calculated using indirect evidence, hence the numerous temperature reconstructions in the graph, these sources have all been peer reviewed and interdependently verified in case you were look for ways to doubt the evidence (feel free to look them up in academic print). Note the overall trend, whilst each differ on the final details of temperatures they all show a correlation and trend for analysis. You should note that there is no period that has seen such a significant rise as the latter part of the 20th century.

After the "Medieval Warm Period" of 1000 years ago, the world entered the "Little Ice Age", followed by a rise in temperatures in the 20'th century. Below it is a chart of the solar cycle for the past 1,100 years, based on Carbon-14 isotope measurements. The varying temperatue of the sun is probably one of the causes of climate change during this time. But note that the Medieveal Warm period identified on the temperature chart lags that in the solar chart by a century. We can see that the present period of global warming coincides with a high point in the solar cycle. There may have been some solar impact on the warming in the first half of the 20th century, but there has been no significant change in solar radiation in the second half when the human caused global warming signal becomes apparent.

Because I do not have much time I have only dealt with the temperature issues of climate change, not the connected changes in weather conditions which hold significant consequences, particularly in agriculture.

For someone who claims to have a considerable understanding of Geography I find it odd that you choose to ignore the numerous academic journals, books, studies, governmental, non-governmental reports to name but a few sources of evidence.

 

[dangie]

Think I'll put the kettle on this could be a long afternoon... :roll::roll:

 

[tbtc]

The Netherlands is a good case in point, though. A country that 'punches above its weight' in aviation terms because the government there has supported the aviation industry. If AMS was a one or two runway airport, KLM would be a fraction of its size and the Schiphol area would not be supporting so many jobs.

Is a big airport such a big boost to the Netherlands as you suggest though?

 

[WatcherZero]

Back on topic, Greening has today said that there is still absoloutely no chance of a Heathrow third runway, theres no Government policy change (despite a review of the decision being in the last budget!) and that if the Government reversed the policy against her concerns she would resign from Cabinet. The thing at issue now seems to be the coalition pledge not to begin work on a third runway during this parliament and whether it doesnt explicitly rule out approving work to be done in the next parliament, even more complicating is the apparent fracturing of the Lib Dems on the issue from a previous unity who now have MP's openly both for and against.

 

[Butts]

Back on topic, Greening has today said that there is still absoloutely no chance of a Heathrow third runway, theres no Government policy change (despite a review of the decision being in the last budget!) and that if the Government reversed the policy against her concerns she would resign from Cabinet. The thing at issue now seems to be the coalition pledge not to begin work on a third runway during this parliament and whether it doesnt explicitly rule out approving work to be done in the next parliament, even more complicating is the apparent fracturing of the Lib Dems on the issue from a previous unity who now have MP's openly both for and against.

And in the intervening period the costs continue to escalate with what is only delaying the inevitable :roll:

 

[SouthernHRH]

Ok Scandel, you got me on that, in the sense of I cannot be bothered to reply. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the point of global warming. We have strayed far from the original topic, so lets try and get back on it slightly. I did say I studied geography, and I have, but I did not say to what level, and for me to be able to put my argument across strongly enough means I will have to sit down for a number of hours and compile an argument, which I cannot be bothered to do, as you have clearly demonstrated a belief in the theory. So who wins, nobody. Lets leave it at that.

@radamfi

Reason I assumed he was talking about easyJet, is because I assumed this debate was about the British economy. Ryanair are an Irish company, so, although they do employ a large number of people in our country, they pay most of there taxes in Dublin. So why should we care how many Eastern European people they employ.

It appears I have stirred it up quiet a bit here. Not my intentions. It appears that a large number of people on these boards appear to be very much against aviation and I am interested to know why is that?

I have seen a number of people saying they feel/think there should be a hub airport in the north of England to complement Heathrow. There is, its called Manchester. That is as good as it is going to get for the north I am afraid. Like Wolfie has said, its all about economics. The truth of the matter is, it is not profitable to operate flights from Manchester to cities around the world, such as Beijing for example, as the demand is too small. Admittedly, in the future we may see a 2 or 3 times weekly flight to Beijing from Manchester, but I am certain this would not be profitable and just an action from an airline like Air China to compete for passengers who would of otherwise transferred via LHR/AMS/FRA. Air travel for the UK all swings on London I am afraid, in particular Heathrow. That is where the airlines want to fly, if they can't serve LHR, then they won't serve the UK and business will go elsewhere.

 

[Butts]

Ok Scandel, you got me on that, in the sense of I cannot be bothered to reply. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the point of global warming. We have strayed far from the original topic, so lets try and get back on it slightly. I did say I studied geography, and I have, but I did not say to what level, and for me to be able to put my argument across strongly enough means I will have to sit down for a number of hours and compile an argument, which I cannot be bothered to do, as you have clearly demonstrated a belief in the theory. So who wins, nobody. Lets leave it at that.

@radamfi

Reason I assumed he was talking about easyJet, is because I assumed this debate was about the British economy. Ryanair are an Irish company, so, although they do employ a large number of people in our country, they pay most of there taxes in Dublin. So why should we care how many Eastern European people they employ.

It appears I have stirred it up quiet a bit here. Not my intentions. It appears that a large number of people on these boards appear to be very much against aviation and I am interested to know why is that?

I have seen a number of people saying they feel/think there should be a hub airport in the north of England to complement Heathrow. There is, its called Manchester. That is as good as it is going to get for the north I am afraid. Like Wolfie has said, its all about economics. The truth of the matter is, it is not profitable to operate flights from Manchester to cities around the world, such as Beijing for example, as the demand is too small. Admittedly, in the future we may see a 2 or 3 times weekly flight to Beijing from Manchester, but I am certain this would not be profitable and just an action from an airline like Air China to compete for passengers who would of otherwise transferred via LHR/AMS/FRA. Air travel for the UK all swings on London I am afraid, in particular Heathrow. That is where the airlines want to fly, if they can't serve LHR, then they won't serve the UK and business will go elsewhere.

Germany France and The Netherlands have one Big Hub be it Frankfurt, CGD or Schipol - why should the UK be any different ?

 

[BananaRepublic]

...there is NO practical way of expanding Heathrow and staying within pollution limits with current technology - well that's not entirely true, you could do it and close the M4) and the degradation of the life of the 8M people who live in Greater London (the noise footprint for Heathrow already covers places as far out as Barnet and Potters Bar in North London). Make no mistake, any attempt to expand Heathrow will be in the courts for years, all the way to Europe.....I can't stand Boris but on this one I am with him.....

The Thames estuary proposals will introduce those same environmental issues to southern Essex, north Kent, east London and the Thames estuary towns; particularly Lord Fosters IOG proposal, which will just be Heathrow on the other side of London, but just a little bit further out from the centre.

The impact of a new runway at Heathrow will differ depending on what is proposed and how it will be used. The previous BAA proposal is the most flawed in this regard.
One possible scenario would see no operations on this runway requiring aircraft to fly over west London (departures only under the normal westerly operation and landings only on easterly operation). There would be an increase in traffic flying over west London from the existing two runways partly operating in mixed mode, but some of this increase will happen anyway if Heathrow is restricted to 2 runways and goes to mixed mode in order to squeeze out more capacity.

The alternative is a new approach path over areas not previously affected, but with no change to those under the current flight paths.

As for emissions. An increase in movements provided by a new runway, will be offset by the large reduction in airborne holding due to the present day lack of runway capacity. Holding is responsibly for a huge annual waste of fuel and resulting wasteful emissions. It comes at a very high cost to the airline operators and to the environment. There is a very good economic and environmental argument for a new runway, before the benefits of increased capacity (for more flights) are realised.
Naturally, more flights = more emissions, but the introduction of more efficient operations overall, plus the gradual introduction of the next generation of aircraft with around 15% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions, will provide a significant offset to help mitigate the environmental effects.


.

 

[Metroland]

. That is where the airlines want to fly, if they can't serve LHR, then they won't serve the UK and business will go elsewhere.

My understanding is the expansion of Heathrow means the additional pollution is equivalent to a small African country.

In my opinion if this means business renders a good proportion of the world uninhabitable (if climate change theories are correct, and most of the scientific community agrees they are) and this causes misery or death for millions of people around the world, then it's not the sort of business Britain ought to be involved in. And if the Airlines stopped being so greedy, they would perhaps realise it's not good business for them either.

 

[starrymarkb]

my bold

Ah, economics, thats all that matters to the current mob - stuff the environmental effects (there is NO practical way of expanding Heathrow and staying within pollution limits with current technology - well that's not entirely true, you could do it and close the M4) and the degradation of the life of the 8M people who live in Greater London (the noise footprint for Heathrow already covers places as far out as Barnet and Potters Bar in North London). Make no mistake, any attempt to expand Heathrow will be in the courts for years, all the way to Europe.....I can't stand Boris but on this one I am with him.....

"more attractive" to those who live anywhere but London.....

Problem with Boris island is that it would be awkward to get to from much of the UK. Remember that south of Manchester if you want to fly to most long haul destinations you have the choice of ground transport to Heathrow or Fly through Amsterdam with KLM. Heathrow is easily accessible by road (car/coach) from the M1 M3, M4 and M40 corridors, and there are relatively short coach/bus links from the SWML at Woking and GWML at Reading. At a stretch you could include the 724 from Watford, though going into London and HEX would probably be quicker.

Now to reach Boris Island would be an extra 1-2 hours travel for much of the UK outside of London. I can't see that going down too well unless BA instigate more Domestic flying

 

[SwindonPkwy]

Problem with Boris island is that it would be awkward to get to from much of the UK. Remember that south of Manchester if you want to fly to most long haul destinations you have the choice of ground transport to Heathrow or Fly through Amsterdam with KLM. Heathrow is easily accessible by road (car/coach) from the M1 M3, M4 and M40 corridors, and there are relatively short coach/bus links from the SWML at Woking and GWML at Reading. At a stretch you could include the 724 from Watford, though going into London and HEX would probably be quicker.

Now to reach Boris Island would be an extra 1-2 hours travel for much of the UK outside of London. I can't see that going down too well unless BA instigate more Domestic flying

Absolutely right; and the cost of the necessary infrastructure to link up the home counties (and beyond) to a position off the Kent coast will be huge. Presumably, it would also entail the demolition of many homes, probably far more than the village of Sipson.
I think the reality is, even if the Thames estuary airport goes ahead (and LHR closes) there would still be a significant demand for regional flights from an airport somewhere along the M4 corridor. Anybody care to take your pick from Boscombe Down, Lynham, Kemble, Fairford?